The "Ive got no choice... I have to bitch about Obamacare" thread

Hypothesis: most Americans are stupid.

 

Proof: Obama voters.

 

I always figured we never had a serious political discussion because we all agree. Looks like I was not that far off.

 

Here is an Obama gem. My friend, easily one of the best Cardiac and Neurosurgeons in the country, moved from Mass General to Montana. He did it because Canadians pay cash. He works half as much and makes three times as much. He figured it made more sense to move before everything hit the fan.

 

So your private insurance from a for profit corporation went up in reaction to a government action that is not even up and running yet or was there some other reason to increase the cost?

 

 

It IS in effect right now....

 

 

SCHOOL IS IN.

 

 

Obamacare requires that insurance companies cover people who have "pre-existing conditions". Sounds nice doesnt it? You can't be denied INSURANCE because you got diagnosed with CANCER last week. For all intents and purposes, that provision is in effect RIGHT NOW. Insurance is about judging future risk. If you tell them that 2 years from now they will have to cover EVERYBODY, they will begin paying for that change NOW.

 

The problem with that is, ITS NO LONGER "INSURANCE".

 

The definition of insurance is "Indemnity (protection) against an uncertain future event."

 

Ive highlighted the key terms there.... FUTURE and UNCERTAIN.

 

EG I cant afford to REBUILD my house if a disaster happens.... So I pay you, my insurer, a few hundred dollars a year so that in the unlikely event that it burns down, YOU REBUILD IT FOR ME, with almost NO out of pocket costs to me. I weigh the risk of my house burning down against the amount you want me to pay every month to rebuild it. If my house burns down before Ive given you the amount it would have cost me to rebuild it myself, I WIN (sort of....)

 

And thats how health insurance worked... RESPONSIBLE people bought health insurance, and when they got sick the insurance company paid the bills. Unfortunately.... We have a lot of IRRESPONSIBLE people who would rather pay for OTHER things, especially young healthy people who would rather spend that money on more important things (beer, cable TV and cell phones). And when they get sick (even young people can get sick, or get hit by a bus), they STILL GOT HEALTH CARE... But then they got a bill for it.

 

Well the notion of people who consciously decided to prioritize other things over their health getting a BILL for health care (in which case they could just declare bankruptcy- You cant get blood from a stone) was so abhorrent to Obama and his crew that they took the risk out of the equation.... To use the house analogy, your house burns down, and the next day you call the insurance company and say "Hi... Weve never met before... But my house just burned down.... Heres my $100 premium payment.... Please send me a check for $300,000 to rebuild my house."

 

ANY MORON can see the economic problem with that? So whats an "insurance" company to do if they are on the hook to pay for PAST, CERTAIN events, rather that FUTURE, UNCERTAIN events?

 

Two answers-

 

1. They spread that risk to their RESPONSIBLE customers. They raise rates.

 

2. They lower the amount they are willing to pay- They stop being an "Insurer". Instead of paying 100% for that catastrophic event for the responsible customers and 0% to the irresponsible customers, they now will only pay 70% of the loss, whether you pay them every month or not, since they are on the hook to cover BOTH.

I agree with you RD, but sadly I see things on the other side of the fence. Im one of those pre-existing. No matter how good of health I am in, im always going ot be a no no considering my Insulin alone each month is $550 ($125 out of pocket with my companies healthy insurance). There has to be other ways they can change the system. Either that or im just fucked. I agree it isnt fair for everyone to have to bear the burden of that though....so what is the solution?

I agree with you RD, but sadly I see things on the other side of the fence. Im one of those pre-existing. No matter how good of health I am in, im always going ot be a no no considering my Insulin alone each month is $550 ($125 out of pocket with my companies healthy insurance). There has to be other ways they can change the system. Either that or im just fucked. I agree it isnt fair for everyone to have to bear the burden of that though....so what is the solution?

 

I dont want to sound harsh, but why should somebody who USES more healthcare, PAY as little as somebody who DOESNT?

 

I think that the REAL problem with the previous system was the ability for insurance companies to drop customers who get sick. fcuk that! Thats an easy fix... One line legislation- In for a penny, in for a pound. Simple... Fixed.

 

The next problem was with people who have pre existing conditions losing their insurance (Generally because it was through an employer and they lost their jobs) and not being able to buy new coverage at that point. I would say that we pass a law that if you have maintained coverage with a recognized heath insurer for a year prior to losing it, that you should be able to get a similar coverage product and not be denied for pre-existing conditions, with another recognized provider. That covers that "OH SHIT- I just lost my job AND my insurance" but doesnt reward the "fcuk it" crowd. The costs are spread around amongst insurers, and rates may go up a BIT but not much.

It IS in effect right now....

 

 

SCHOOL IS IN.

 

 

Obamacare requires that insurance companies cover people who have "pre-existing conditions". Sounds nice doesnt it? You can't be denied INSURANCE because you got diagnosed with CANCER last week. For all intents and purposes, that provision is in effect RIGHT NOW. Insurance is about judging future risk. If you tell them that 2 years from now they will have to cover EVERYBODY, they will begin paying for that change NOW.

 

The problem with that is, ITS NO LONGER "INSURANCE".

 

The definition of insurance is "Indemnity (protection) against an uncertain future event."

 

Ive highlighted the key terms there.... FUTURE and UNCERTAIN.

 

EG I cant afford to REBUILD my house if a disaster happens.... So I pay you, my insurer, a few hundred dollars a year so that in the unlikely event that it burns down, YOU REBUILD IT FOR ME, with almost NO out of pocket costs to me. I weigh the risk of my house burning down against the amount you want me to pay every month to rebuild it. If my house burns down before Ive given you the amount it would have cost me to rebuild it myself, I WIN (sort of....)

 

And thats how health insurance worked... RESPONSIBLE people bought health insurance, and when they got sick the insurance company paid the bills. Unfortunately.... We have a lot of IRRESPONSIBLE people who would rather pay for OTHER things, especially young healthy people who would rather spend that money on more important things (beer, cable TV and cell phones). And when they get sick (even young people can get sick, or get hit by a bus), they STILL GOT HEALTH CARE... But then they got a bill for it.

 

Well the notion of people who consciously decided to prioritize other things over their health getting a BILL for health care (in which case they could just declare bankruptcy- You cant get blood from a stone) was so abhorrent to Obama and his crew that they took the risk out of the equation.... To use the house analogy, your house burns down, and the next day you call the insurance company and say "Hi... Weve never met before... But my house just burned down.... Heres my $100 premium payment.... Please send me a check for $300,000 to rebuild my house."

 

ANY MORON can see the economic problem with that? So whats an "insurance" company to do if they are on the hook to pay for PAST, CERTAIN events, rather that FUTURE, UNCERTAIN events?

 

Two answers-

 

1. They spread that risk to their RESPONSIBLE customers. They raise rates.

 

2. They lower the amount they are willing to pay- They stop being an "Insurer". Instead of paying 100% for that catastrophic event for the responsible customers and 0% to the irresponsible customers, they now will only pay 70% of the loss, whether you pay them every month or not, since they are on the hook to cover BOTH.

 

I didn't really read into this plan until your posts as I haven't been to a doctor in 10+ years, so I wasn't worried, but now I am.

 

I was under the insane impression that this plan was to make the insurance company pay for anyone who has paid their coverage and gets Cancer, or a terminal illness, so when it happens, you dont pay out the nose for your percentage of the costs.

 

I guess I was wrong.

 

I personally don't mind paying a little more when something small-Doctors visit, small surgery, etc. but I WANT COVERAGE if I get cancer and have a $3,000,000 hospital bill. They should pay for it. Not me.

I didn't really read into this plan until your posts as I haven't been to a doctor in 10+ years, so I wasn't worried, but now I am.

 

I was under the insane impression that this plan was to make the insurance company pay for anyone who has paid their coverage and gets Cancer, or a terminal illness, so when it happens, you dont pay out the nose for your percentage of the costs.

 

I guess I was wrong.

 

I personally don't mind paying a little more when something small-Doctors visit, small surgery, etc. but I WANT COVERAGE if I get cancer and have a $3,000,000 hospital bill. They should pay for it. Not me.

 

 

If youve got an employer provided plan and havent been paying attention, I would make a point to check my policy.... Things may have changed.

A recent "Investor's Business Daily" article provided very interesting statistics from a survey by the United Nations International Health Organization.

 

 

Percentage of men and women who survived a cancer five years after diagnosis:

U.S. 65%

England 46%

Canada 42%

 

Percentage of patients diagnosed with diabetes who received treatment within six months:

U.S. 93%

England 15%

Canada 43%

 

Percentage of seniors needing hip replacement who received it within six months:

U.S. 90%

England 15%

Canada 43%

 

Percentage referred to a medical specialist who see one within one month:

U.S. 77%

England 40%

Canada 43%

 

Number of MRI scanners (a prime diagnostic tool) per million people:

U.S. 71

England 14

Canada 18

 

Percentage of seniors (65+), with low income, who say they are in "excellent health":

U.S. 12%

England 2%

Canada 6%

 

 

 

Check this last set of statistics!!

 

 

The percentage of each past president's cabinet who had worked in the private business sector prior to their appointment to the cabinet. You know what the private business sector is…a real-life business, not a government job. Here are the percentages.

 

T. Roosevelt..........38%

Taft......................40%

Wilson .................52%

Harding.................49%

Coolidge.............. 48%

Hoover .................42%

F. Roosevelt.........50%

Truman.................50%

Eisenhower...........57%

Kennedy...............30%

Johnson................47%

Nixon....................53%

Ford......................42%

Carter....................32%

Reagan..................56%

GH Bush............... 51%

Clinton .................39%

GW Bush................55%

 

And the winner is:

 

Obama............... 8%

 

 

This helps to explain the incompetence of this administration: only 8% of them have ever worked in private business!

 

That's right! Only eight percent---the least, by far, of the last 19 presidents! And these people are trying to tell our big corporations how to run their business? They know what's best for GM, Chrysler, Wall Street, and you and me?

 

How can the president of a major nation and society, the one with the most successful economic system in world history, stand and talk about business when he's never worked for one? Or about jobs when he has never really had one? And when it's the same for 92% of his senior staff and closest advisers? They've spent most of their time in academia, government and/or non-profit jobs or as "community organizers." They should have been in an employment line.

Capitalism= The unequal distribution of prosperity.

 

Socialism= The equal distribution of misery.

 

Communism= Socialism with a gun pointed at your head.

Preach it brother, It would be one thing if socalism actually worked but it doesn't. It punishes the wealthy to help the poor, but it then fails to help to help the poor which is its

purpose in the first place. The purpose of insurance is to protect wealth and limit risk, If your Bill Gates you don't need insurance you just pay the bill what ever it is. Im convinced

the purpose of obamacare is to bankrupt everyone but the super-rich so we have no choice but to accept socialised medicine.

That 30% thing is crazy. Mine barely changed. I must have lucked out

A recent "Investor's Business Daily" article provided very interesting statistics from a survey by the United Nations International Health Organization.

 

 

Percentage of men and women who survived a cancer five years after diagnosis:

U.S. 65%

England 46%

Canada 42%

 

Percentage of patients diagnosed with diabetes who received treatment within six months:

U.S. 93%

England 15%

Canada 43%

 

Percentage of seniors needing hip replacement who received it within six months:

U.S. 90%

England 15%

Canada 43%

 

Percentage referred to a medical specialist who see one within one month:

U.S. 77%

England 40%

Canada 43%

 

Number of MRI scanners (a prime diagnostic tool) per million people:

U.S. 71

England 14

Canada 18

 

Percentage of seniors (65+), with low income, who say they are in "excellent health":

U.S. 12%

England 2%

Canada 6%

 

 

 

Check this last set of statistics!!

 

 

The percentage of each past president's cabinet who had worked in the private business sector prior to their appointment to the cabinet. You know what the private business sector is…a real-life business, not a government job. Here are the percentages.

 

T. Roosevelt..........38%

Taft......................40%

Wilson .................52%

Harding.................49%

Coolidge.............. 48%

Hoover .................42%

F. Roosevelt.........50%

Truman.................50%

Eisenhower...........57%

Kennedy...............30%

Johnson................47%

Nixon....................53%

Ford......................42%

Carter....................32%

Reagan..................56%

GH Bush............... 51%

Clinton .................39%

GW Bush................55%

 

And the winner is:

 

Obama............... 8%

 

 

This helps to explain the incompetence of this administration: only 8% of them have ever worked in private business!

 

That's right! Only eight percent---the least, by far, of the last 19 presidents! And these people are trying to tell our big corporations how to run their business? They know what's best for GM, Chrysler, Wall Street, and you and me?

 

How can the president of a major nation and society, the one with the most successful economic system in world history, stand and talk about business when he's never worked for one? Or about jobs when he has never really had one? And when it's the same for 92% of his senior staff and closest advisers? They've spent most of their time in academia, government and/or non-profit jobs or as "community organizers." They should have been in an employment line.

 

Finally someone put my thoughts into words! Thank you Scott!

I didn't really want this thread to turn into an Obama bashing or "miss me yet" thread, or even a debate about single payer socialized medicine, but rather to highlight how VERY fucked up this program they gave us is.

 

However. I DO believe scotty is correct. Obama is the LEAST qualified person we've had in the oval office since Harry Truman (and at least Harry had run a marginally successful hat store) and I think that lack of real world experience has seriously crippled his ability to do THIS job which is a challenge for even the MOST qualified.

 

The nation got caught up in euphoria based on personality and the historical significance of a black potus, combined that with bush fatigue and gave us an empty suit.

 

I think obama knew he was in way over his head. He had to. I would feel embarrassed to be elected President with his resume. And so, feeling like he needed to "do something" to establish his credibility he pushed for single payer european style socialized healthcare. And from the minute that was introduced it was DEAD. The best he could get was a POS "reform" that would only make things WORSE. He had to know the bill was a dog. But instead of scrapping it and trying again later he pushed it through. BECAUSE he NEEDED a political WIN.

The nation got caught up in euphoria based on personality and the historical significance of a black potus, combined that with bush fatigue and gave us an empty suit.

 

 

Hopefully, this lesson won't be easily forgotten.

 

For everyone that lived in a liberal US city in 2008, what an annoying time that was.

I just got out of a meeting with my bcbs rep for my employees benefits. We are having some changes others have stated, but he told me the real changes come in 2014. Some of them are crazy, I couldn't believe it. They are basically taxing the business and the employee's heath payments to pay for others???? He said the the new policies are trying to put private insurance out of business. Or at least make it so expensive that most will have to choose a gov't alternative. It will be similar to Private school vs Public School in the US. Most people send their kids to public school, but a few want better for the kids so they elect private school even though they pay taxes(for me $27K per year property school tax) that pays for public school. In essence you are paying twice but you do for the better product. I think some in Europe elect for private insurance too even though they have the public option. Also, many Canadians come to the US to self pay for procedures that they cant get or have to wait too long for in Canada. I have been told that private self pay hospitals and insurance is a growing industry in Europe, anyone in here that confirm that?

I concur. I do not want to bash anyone, only state the facts. And the fact is we have people running this country who have never managed anything like a business before, where your neck is on the line every day. I am totally sure I could run any business with an unlimited supply of money and total forgivness for any mistakes I make.....however that is not reality. Reality is, If I overspend or If I screw up....my business will fail and I take everyone down with me. There are a lot of people counting on me to make good decisions every day with no bail out.

 

For everyone that lived in a liberal US city in 2008, what an annoying time that was.

 

Driving through the Peoples Republic of Cambridge made me want to suckstart a glock in 2008.

 

 

 

Hopefully, this lesson won't be easily forgotten.

 

For everyone that lived in a liberal US city in 2008, what an annoying time that was.

Yea, living downtown chicago was a real fcuking treat!

I concur. I do not want to bash anyone, only state the facts. And the fact is we have people running this country who have never managed anything like a business before, where your neck is on the line every day. I am totally sure I could run any business with an unlimited supply of money and total forgivness for any mistakes I make.....however that is not reality. Reality is, If I overspend or If I screw up....my business will fail and I take everyone down with me. There are a lot of people counting on me to make good decisions every day with no bail out.

 

This right here sums it up perfectly.

I dont want to sound harsh, but why should somebody who USES more healthcare, PAY as little as somebody who DOESNT?

 

I think that the REAL problem with the previous system was the ability for insurance companies to drop customers who get sick. fcuk that! Thats an easy fix... One line legislation- In for a penny, in for a pound. Simple... Fixed.

 

The next problem was with people who have pre existing conditions losing their insurance (Generally because it was through an employer and they lost their jobs) and not being able to buy new coverage at that point. I would say that we pass a law that if you have maintained coverage with a recognized heath insurer for a year prior to losing it, that you should be able to get a similar coverage product and not be denied for pre-existing conditions, with another recognized provider. That covers that "OH SHIT- I just lost my job AND my insurance" but doesnt reward the "fcuk it" crowd. The costs are spread around amongst insurers, and rates may go up a BIT but not much.

 

I absolutely 100% agree with everything you have said here and that was kind of my thought as well, for maintaining coverage from job loss. But why cant the people on the hill figure that out, seems easy enough?

I didn't really want this thread to turn into an Obama bashing or "miss me yet" thread, or even a debate about single payer socialized medicine, but rather to highlight how VERY fucked up this program they gave us is.

 

However. I DO believe scotty is correct. Obama is the LEAST qualified person we've had in the oval office since Harry Truman (and at least Harry had run a marginally successful hat store) and I think that lack of real world experience has seriously crippled his ability to do THIS job which is a challenge for even the MOST qualified.

 

The nation got caught up in euphoria based on personality and the historical significance of a black potus, combined that with bush fatigue and gave us an empty suit.

 

I think obama knew he was in way over his head. He had to. I would feel embarrassed to be elected President with his resume. And so, feeling like he needed to "do something" to establish his credibility he pushed for single payer european style socialized healthcare. And from the minute that was introduced it was DEAD. The best he could get was a POS "reform" that would only make things WORSE. He had to know the bill was a dog. But instead of scrapping it and trying again later he pushed it through. BECAUSE he NEEDED a political WIN.

 

Yes he and "Billary" needed a win. They have been pushing this for years and with the euphoria of the Obama win, it was time to push health care reform

 

It was as much the Clintons push as it was Obamas.

 

Not surprisingly, since all of the backlash over the bill, Hillary has been quiet about it.

It IS in effect right now....

please find a doctor that is actively billing to Obamacare (I don't call it reform because I don't like the way it is structured) right now in any significant numbers because I can tell you three of the major hospitals in the LA area are not. So where is the cost? You are also working under the assumption that the Obamacare bill covers everything. It does not. The aim of it, is to keep the working class working and letting some people with pre-existing conditions to not be gouged by their insurers out of fear and false numbers. Sorry diabetics, business as usual since the insurers will not lower their rates even after the bill is repealed.

 

We are one of the few first world nations without paid sick leave, so we incentivise people to come to work sick. It seems every few years we have a massive nationwide scare of a small number of people infecting others and the rate of infection spreading exponentially. H1N1, SARS, ecoli, flus, colds, etc... Usually it sarts at places like Taco Bell, Walmart, with workers that can't afford the sick day or insurance to make sure that sniffle is not the beginning of flesh eating alien ass weasels. (bonus points for Steven King references?)

 

We can cherry pick arguments and skew them all we like, here's one, and to keep the attention of Americans, I'll use guns and terrorists and the above horror movie. How about small pox and a subway car. What is the likelyhood of an epidemic from a terrorist act with smallpox if we all have the shots? Is that healthcare or billable to national defense?

 

Imagine if everyone at that Arizona rally had guns, the shooter may have shot one or two people, but not to the extent that he did without gun toting citizens. Change guns for flu vaccine. So the public would not have likely been a carrier of a virus to infect the politicians at the event.

 

The Chinese have no worries. They can let workers get infected and die off, the have a limitless supply of expendable labor. Here is a complete bullshit, yet plausable fear scenario. Imagine some random disease that hits dockworkers and starts whiping them out, save a $500 shot for each of them every 6 months. They can't afford to pay this cost for whatever reason and they are not replacable because people are afraid to work there.

 

Do you:

1. Pay extra per product and have legislation that allows the workers to get one paid day off to go get the shot
2. Pray AC Delco starts making Lamborghini longblocks for sale at Kragen (hooray job creation!)
3. Pay extra to import through countries like Canada and Mexico that do have national healthcare so this does not effect them (they are basically here to serve our needs anyway)
4. pay slightly higer taxes and cry over it
5. screw them, let's roll the dice and hope that the few people that did get a shot don't become incubators for a more aggressive strain of the virus
6. take a month off from Afganistan since the cost of one month there is the proposed cost for national healthcare for a year for every American anyway and we all know it is a BS, unwinnable war.

 

 

Here's your housefire

please find a doctor that is actively billing to Obamacare (I don't call it reform because I don't like the way it is structured) right now in any significant numbers because I can tell you three of the major hospitals in the LA area are not.

 

EDIT:

 

If this is your metric for measuring when the effects of obamacare are going to reach the general public, you need to get your head checked.

I concur. I do not want to bash anyone, only state the facts. And the fact is we have people running this country who have never managed anything like a business before, where your neck is on the line every day. I am totally sure I could run any business with an unlimited supply of money and total forgivness for any mistakes I make.....however that is not reality. Reality is, If I overspend or If I screw up....my business will fail and I take everyone down with me. There are a lot of people counting on me to make good decisions every day with no bail out.

 

 

 

I hate politics it makes my blood boil, most of the idiots that get elected are just that idiots, from time to time you get one that's worse that most of the previous ones unfortunately that's politics for you, people use emotion when they vote, majority of them are weak, uninformed and uneducated hence easy to manipulate, it is certainly a flawed system.

 

We are all familiar with the herd mentality, it's a fact of life, they have no idea what business is and how it's run if someone promises them few extra dollars for a tiny bit less work they instantly fall in love with the political candidate.

You would be surprised to know how many vote on looks or the way the candidate dresses.

 

We will never be able to get out of this situation as long as everyone is allowed to vote, I know it is your right to vote blah blah blah but as mean as this might sound many people have no idea what's good for them.

I would simply base it on an IQ test, you pass the test you can vote you are a dumbass back in line please. You aren't employable by McDonald's but we have no issues with you deciding the future of our country, please!

 

I don't have to go further than YouTube for evidence that supports my claim, some of the absolute retards on display there are being trusted with the future of the country you live in, are you still surprised at the result?

 

I lost faith in people here, I would love to remind everyone who voted for labour that we are capitalists not socialist/communist, countries have to be run like major successful corporations, you MUST have capable businessmen in power, the herd never goes for that, the "Robin Hood mentality" is stuck too far up their a***s everyone hates the rich, combine that with their lack of education, inability of understanding business, lack of socio-economic awareness the herd always ends up voting against their best interest.

 

It is sad to see but unfortunately there isn't much we can do about it.

Obamacare was rammed through because the Democrats have been pushing for universal healthcare for sixty years now. What I don't get is this fetish for single-payer the Democrats have. Universal healthcare does not necessarilly mean single-payer. Germany has universal healthcare, but it is not a socialized single-payer system. They have a system that is a complex combination of public and private. France, a literal quasi-socialist country, also does not have single-payer healthcare. Theirs is also a complex combination of public and private. The major nations with single-payer are the United Kingdom and Canada, and a few others.

 

The problem with healthcare systems is that there are three aspects:

 

1) Cost controls

2) Freedom of choice

3) Universal coverage

 

You can only get two of these. It's virtually impossible for any system to have all three. You can have cost controls and freedom of choice, but you must give up universal coverage. Or you can have universal coverage and freedom of choice, but costs will explode. Or you can have cost controls and unversal coverage, but you must give up freedom of choice. Obamacare promises all three, which is impossible.

 

The insanity of Obamacare is that it claims to reduce the deficit, which in itself is a rather stretch because the CBO has to go by all sorts of assumptions and estimates in coming to this conclusion. HOWEVER, the way Obamacare works is that it increases spending by some $500 billion and then increases taxes by some $700 billion. Also, the benefits don't kick in until 2014, while the taxes kick in immediately, so you get six years worth of outlays for ten years worth of inlays for the first decade. So yeah, ten years of taxes for six years of spending and increase spending but have higher taxes, on paper, "reduces" the deficit.

"Politics is not the art of the possible. Often it consists in choosing between the disastrous and the unpalatable. "

 

“Three groups spend other people’s money, children, thieves, and politicians. All three need serious supervision.”

 

"We've gone from Hope and Change to Fear and Loathing".

 

"Isn't it great to live in a society where the penalty for lying to a congressman can be up to 30 years in jail, but the penalty for a congressman lying to you is another two years in office. "

 

"We can't all be government employees, college educated intellectuals. Then there'd be nothing to eat."

 

"Socialism only works in two places; Heaven where they don't need it and hell where they already have it."

 

"I have wondered at times about what the Ten Commandments would have looked like if Moses had run them through the US Congress."